Headlines

BuzzFeed

Liberals pretty excited about this Hagel pick

“The Hagel confirmation battle will show whether the AIPAC crowd has cried wolf too many times and the system is now becoming numb,” said Steve Clemons, a central figure in what he calls “progressive realist” foreign policy and Washington editor at large for The Atlantic. The fight “will also out the fact that the real issue here is not US-Israel relations but rather how fearful defense contractors which suck up a huge amount of defense spending are pulling a lot of these levers,” he said…

Beinart also defended a controversial Hagel jab at the “Jewish lobby,” arguing that it’s a sentiment that many in Washington hold but few say aloud and that Hagel displayed “uncommon honesty.”

“I’ve also heard many government officials, some of them Jewish, say things similar to what Hagel is now being flayed for having [said],” Beinart wrote. “The difference is that those other officials first confirmed that they were speaking off the record. One even lowered his voice and closed the door.”

Their hope — and their foes’ fear — is that Hagel’s confirmation could mean that views outside what is considered the mainstream on Israel and Iran begin to replace the more hawkish Washington consensus.

The fight “will also out the fact that the real issue here is not US-Israel relations but rather how fearful defense contractors which suck up a huge amount of defense spending are pulling a lot of these levers,” he said…

I’m sure he worries about the same from the green energy lobby, the abortion lobby, the banking lobby, the auto unions, the community organizers, etc. All of whom I suspect have more access to those or similar levers than do the defense contractors.

“I’ve also heard many government officials, some of them Jewish, say things similar to what Hagel is now being flayed for having [said],” Beinart wrote. “The difference is that those other officials first confirmed that they were speaking off the record. One even lowered his voice and closed the door.”

Barack Obama wants to appoint an anti-gay former U.S. Senator, Chuck Hagel, as the next Defense Secretary.

Back in the Clinton Administration, Hagel opposed the appointment of an openly gay man to be ambassador to Luxembourg. At the time, Hagel said: “They [ambassadors] are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel [the nominee] — to do an effective job.”

Under pressure, Hagel is now backing down from his comments. This means about as much as the words of any politician. Hagel knows that everyone else knows the real truth is reflected in his earlier comments on the subject.

The compelling question for today is: Why does Obama want Hagel as defense secretary? Fresh from his reelection triumph, Obama can appoint almost anyone he wants and the Democratic-controlled Senate will approve almost any nomination.

Why Hagel?

Obama, after all, credits himself with reversing the official ban on gays serving in the military. (Gays and lesbians always did serve in the military; they were not allowed to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation, until recently.)

Why in the world would the leftist Obama go out of his way to choose an anti-gay Republican?

The answer lies in why so many conservative Republicans oppose Hagel’s nomination. The answer lies in Hagel’s views on foreign policy and defense—specifically, Iran, Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Hagel is on record as opposed to unilateral sanctions against Iran, a country whose government denies the existence of the Holocaust and pledges to wipe Israel “off the map” once it acquires nuclear weapons to do so.

In 2009, Hagel appealed to the newly elected President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas, the infamous anti-Israeli terrorist group.

Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

“He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,” said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational. (Source: Commentary magazine online, 1/4/13)

Imagine if a nominee for Health and Human Services secretary was on record saying, “Let the blacks pay for it.” Or: “Let Hispanics pay for it.” The outrage would be deafening—and not surprising.

Why not even a whimper from Obama’s colleagues in Congress with equally racist remarks by a nominee for one of the nation’s most important and powerful posts?

Obama is a politician, but he’s more consistent and ideological than most. To understand him, all you have to do is what most Americans no longer do: Pay attention.

Obama is openly sympathetic to militant Islam. He has been for his entire term of office. Obama does not waver. He often speaks highly not only of Islam, but organizations connected with militant Islam. A former Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi, is now president of Egypt, thanks in part to the tacit approval of the Obama Administration. Morsi, as recently as 2010, reportedly stated in a public address that Jews are “the descendants of apes and pigs” and therefore must be expelled from the Middle East.

The official policy of the United States government, under Obama, is to—at best—disregard these comments. In so doing, our government implicitly supports them.

How do anti-gay remarks figure into all this? As everyone knows, Islam is violently opposed to homosexuality, to the point of justifying the execution of gays and lesbians under both moral and secular law. Can those of you still paying attention connect the dots, or must I do it for you?

Sympathy with militant Islam is consistent with gay-hating and Jew-hating. Obama’s policies of supporting the rise of militant Islam in Egypt and offering to appease Iran are consistent with looking for a defense secretary who is openly sympathetic to these attitudes.

Obama never was a friend of individual rights or individualism. Whether it’s socialized medicine or thrashing the productive and successful, he places the collective above the individual at every turn.

Like every collectivist in human history, Obama inevitably favors some groups above others. Jews clearly do not make the cut; and gays do, but only when politically convenient for him.

The left, as Steve Clemons argues, thinks the US supports Israel because of AIPAC.

No, the US supports Israel because the American people – most of them not Jewish – believe we should support a liberal democracy that is surrounded by brutal regimes filled with people who want to destroy it and us.

Remember during the Cold War when “progressives” criticized the US for supporting dictators? So much for “realist” thinking.